Lieutenant governor called the Adult Use of Marijuana Act a ‘game changer’ and an antidote to what he described as the failed and racist war on drugs.

Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom announced on Wednesday that the first of more than a dozen initiatives proposed to legalize recreational marijuana inCalifornia, the biggest pot producer in the US, has collected enough signatures to appear on the ballot in November.

Flanked by sober-suited supporters, a doctor in a white coat, the head of the state NAACP and one very conservative Republican congressman, Newsom called the Adult Use of Marijuana Act – which was bankrolled by Napster founder Sean Parker – “a game changer”, an antidote to what he described as the failed and racist war on drugs.

“It’s unlikely that any others will qualify,” Newsom said of the competing measures. “We have qualified. We are north of 600,000 signatures. That is beyond what is needed. We need a little less than 400,000. You can rest assured this will be on the November ballot.”

Keep up-to-date with drug policy developments by subscribing to the IDPC Monthly Alert.

California recreational marijuana initiative will be on the November ballot

A regional meeting in Kiev marks the beginning of a discussion on drug policy reforms in EECA countries.

In most countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia (CEECA), people who use drugs often become targets of repressive drug policies which were originally aimed at combating organized crime that controls the illegal drug market. The current practice in these countries allows arresting and imprisoning people who possess a single dose of a drug. In some countries, the mere presence of a drug in one’s blood can serve as the basis for a criminal case. In these circumstances, the use or possession of drugs results in prison terms that are comparable with those for serious crimes, including murder.

These practices are not only extremely costly and inefficient in combating organized crime, but also lead to a deteriorating situation with HIV, tuberculosis and lethal overdoses, as well as to further social exclusion of people who use drugs. At the same time, the world and some CEECA countries provide examples of efficient and cost-effective drug policies that enable people who use drugs to maintain their health and work and live a full life.

Is there an alternative to repressive drug policies?

After decades of implementing—and exporting—“tough on crime” policies that prioritize arrest and incarceration for even minor drug offenses, the United States is reconsidering its criminal justice system. These reforms should be noted in Latin America, a new report released today argues, as the region faces surging prison populations driven in part by draconian U.S.-sponsored policies.

From 1973 to 2009, the total U.S. prison population increased over seven-fold as more low-level offenders were incarcerated—instead of receiving non-prison punishments—and a range of offenses garnered significantly longer sentences. Much of the change came as part of the “War on Drugs,” and arrest and incarceration rates for drug offenses saw a particularly marked rise. From 1980 to 2010, the imprisonment rate for drug crimes grew from 15 per 100,000 to 143 per 100,000; a nearly ten-fold increase.

Between rhetoric and reform: criminal justice reform in the United States

Berlin (AFP) - Germany is to legalise cannabis for medicinal purposes early next year, the health minister said on Tuesday.

"Our goal is that seriously ill patients are treated in the best possible way," said Hermann Groehe, who will present draft legislation to the German cabinet on Wednesday.

The draft bill comes as many parts of the world are relaxing laws on cannabis use and medicinal marijuana is gaining popularity to ease suffering from cancer, glaucoma, HIV or AIDS, Hepatitis C, Parkinson's disease and other serious conditions.

However, the issue of recreational and medical cannabis use is controversial in many countries, as opponents fear crime connected to drug abuse and addiction. Some argue pot use could lead to dependence on harder drugs.

Germany is about to legalise medical marijuana

It was a surreal exercise that unfolded at the UN in New York last week — a pretend consensus, and a terrible dereliction of duty by some of the world’s governments. And yet, paradoxically, I left the event at the end of the week feeling profoundly encouraged.

On April 19, the assembly president opened the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on “the world drug problem.” It had been hoped the UNGASS process could be an opportunity for a wide-ranging and open debate about what is and isn’t working around the world in responding to drugs. Indeed, more than 1000 leaders from around the world had called on the UN not to squander this historic opportunity to end the failed drug war that has wasted so many resources, led to gross and systemic violations of human rights, and done terrible damage to public health, including fuelling the HIV and hepatitis C epidemics. Yet moments later, the General Assembly adopted by consensus the text of aresolution negotiated, with considerable acrimony, a month before at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna.

And what a resounding failure that formal outcome document is in 2016 — as civil society organizations and theGlobal Commission on Drug Policy have pointed out. It fails to acknowledge the harm done by decades of punitive prohibition, and the mounting evidence of much more effective, humane approaches. Of course, this outcome is not particularly surprising, given the active and successful efforts of a number of countries to block or significantly weaken any language committing countries to harm reduction approaches or to respecting human rights. (We’re looking at you, Russia — one of the leading offenders.)

Consensus crumbling: report from the UN general assembly special session on drugs

By Juan Gabriel Tokatlian - Open Democacy

The Summit represented a big opportunity to end the "war on drugs", but defenders of the status quo were able to abort aspirations of an effective transformation of the field.

According to the Real Academia Española dictionary, opportunity is understood as the existence of "appropriate circumstances" while opportunism refers to taking advantage of such circumstances to obtain "the greatest possible benefit". The recent (April 19-21) third United Nations General Assembly Special Session on drugs (UNGASS) promised to be a propicious opportunity to rethink and reorientate the issue of illicit psychoactive substances, towards a different track from the current prohibitionist approach. However, a preliminary assessment shows that this was an opportunist summit in which defenders of the status quo were able to abort aspirations of an effective transformation of the field.

Prior to the conference, a combination of factors had called into question the international regime of illicit drugs (IRID). In 1990 and 1998 the first and second United Nations General Assembly Special Sessions on drugs were held. The first UNGASS took place in the final days of the Cold War - with the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe - and the deepening of the "war on drugs" - especially in terms of the US anti-narcotics policy with respect to Latin America.

The emphasis was placed on punitive measures centred on controlling supply: a focus was placed on drugs as a security issue. Briefly, UNGASS 1990 concerned the imposition of a coercive rationality: alternative and/or dissenting voices were few and were ignored; the United States (accompanied by many Eastern countries) seemed to depend on the ability to advance their version of prohibitionism against a Europe and a Latin America with limited will to coordinate a common perspective distinct from the former.

Keep up-to-date with drug policy developments by subscribing to the IDPC Monthly Alert.

UNGASS 2016: from opportunity to opportunism

A global meeting on drugs failed to deliver a highly anticipated shift from a punitive approach to narcotics, disappointing Myanmar advocacy groups.

The outcome of the UN General Assembly Special Session on drugs held last week in New York instead resulted in a draft resolution that brings little new to the table, experts said.

Nang Pann Ei, a coordinator of the Drug Policy Advocacy Groups, called the UNGASS meeting significant because Myanmar civil society was able to speak up for opium farmers facing the constant threat of crop eradication. But she voiced disappointment about the resulting policy document, saying it has “some serious gaps”.

“It did not mention harm reduction specifically, and decriminalisation of drug use and abolishing the death penalty for drug-related offenses was not mentioned,” she said. “This will impact Myanmar drug policies, which will still stick to repressive drug laws and not change to 100 percent human rights-based drug policies for the affected communities.”

“We hoped UNGASS would help change these outdated and repressive policies, but this unfortunately did not happen,” she added.

New agreement brings no end to war on drugs in ASEAN

From time to time, DrugWise will be featuring guest blogs. Our first one is from

 from Kent University and Editor of Drugs and Alcohol Today.

Consensus on Outcome Documents and centrality of drug convention is reached, but big split between reformers and conservative states

Legalisation schemes continue to be rolled out across different countries in clear contravention of treaty stipulations

Increasing number of countries adopt death penalty and corporate punishment

US position puts unprecedented emphasis on treatment and alternative punishment

Detailed list of operational recommendations likely to result in funding proposals submitted to European Union

Role of international agencies like INCB and UNODC strengthened

Detailed critique of human rights violations, adverse impact on public health and development objectives remains unaddressed

Next meeting in 2019 likely to be more acrimonious

“The drug problem and its related evils transcend borders and affect citizens worldwide. Hence international cooperation towards an integrated and balanced strategy is required in order to counter them”, said Archbishop Bernadido Auza of the Holy See when addressing the UN General Assembly on Thursday, 21 of April.

UNGASS 2016 – The consensus holds, but only under protest

“So how disappointed am I?,” Kasia Malinoska-Sempruch asked a crowd of civil society representatives that had gathered for the UN Special Session on Drug Policy (UNGASS) last week in New York. “The outcome is not ideal. But at least it advances access to pain medications for the terminally ill worldwide.”

Malinoska-Sempruch, who directs the Global Drug Policy program at the Open Society Foundations (OSF), was visibly exhausted after 18 months of civil society preparations for UNGASS. She may have put a brave face on it – at present, three quarters of the world's countries fail to provide adequate access to prescription pain medicines – but her disappointment, and the frustration and disappointment of the many who had gathered in New York for the UN meetings, was palpable.

The first meeting of UNGASS since 1998 was supposed to be a game changer in prodding the lumbering and often draconian UN drug policy regime into serious revision. Mass incarceration of the poor, corruption, human rights abuses, public health crises and violence caused by the Drug War have been exhaustingly documented all over the world. According to UN research, the negative impacts fall disproportionately on indigenous communities, people of color, women and children. Although about $100 billion is spent on counter-narcotics efforts every year, the illicit trade spirals upward with its current value estimated at between $300 billion and $500 billion a year. But in the end, the UN Special Session came up short in meeting the expectations of drug policy reformers from around the globe.

Lack of progress and transparency at the UN General Assembly Special Session on drugs

One year after the executions carried out by Indonesia on 29 April 2015, PKNI and LBH Masyarakat examined the drug situation in Indonesia. The executions were undertaken in the name of a “drug emergency” to achieve the so-called “drug-free Indonesia.” The executions were also carried out to deter and reduce the rate of drug-related crime. Is this justification plausible? After examining the data collected from the National Narcotic Board (BNN) and the Directorate General for Correctional Facilities, Ministry of Law and Human Rights, it can be seen that executions are not proven to decrease drug crimes.

In 2008, Indonesia executed two drug convicts from Nigeria. Since 2008, however, drug crimes have not fallen. The number of people convicted of drug offences throughout 2015 increased. Likewise, the number of people who use drugs has increased since 2011 until 2015. In 2011, there were 3.6 million people who use drugs and in 2015, the number rose to 5.9 million (representing a 64% increase) As the data shows, executing people has failed to curb drug offences. It is time for Indonesia's drug policies to be guided by evidence and science, instead of ideology or moral judgment.

Does the death penalty reduce drug use and drug related crime? Data from Indonesia

last week received some unexpected news about a major shift in the attitude of the United Nations towards the decriminalization of cannabis. According to the paper, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) was set to announce a more tolerant approach at a major meeting in New York City. But although the meeting was real, the policy shift was not. The announcement was a hoax, and pointedly timed for 20 April (‘4/20’), a day on which cannabis users celebrate and promote their choice. The scam even included a well-constructed fake press release that quoted the (real) UNODC executive director Yury Fedotov as saying: “The science increasingly supports decriminalization and harm reduction over proscriptive, fear-based approaches.”

For those who advocate drug-law reform — a group that includes a sizeable number of scientists — the truth was a lot less encouraging. The comments that Fedotov made at last week’s UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS) were certainly less quotable. In a tweet he noted: “#UNGASS outcome doc reaffirms joint responses to world drug problem based on agreed frameworks, #sharedresponsibility, intl cooperation”.

Despite hopes ahead of the meeting that nations would step back from the ‘war on drugs’ rhetoric that has defined international policy — and science — for decades, instead the UN blandly reformatted the existing status quo. Essentially, the message is still: ‘drugs are bad’.

On a downer

Negotiating the political minefield of global drug policy has left civil society and many progressive-thinking countries disappointed by the outcomes of last week’s United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the World Drug Problem, and frustrated by the UNGASS process.

The 19-21 April meeting of world leaders, non-governmental organisations and members of civil society in New York was the first special session on drugs in nearly 20 years. It offered a momentous opportunity to debate global drug policy, discuss successes and failures, and endorse a new Outcome Document as the way forward.

In the three-year run-up, there were strong calls from many member states and civil society organisations to move away from criminalisation and punitive approaches in place since the 1998 UNGASS on drugs, which vowed to reduce the ever increasing supply and demand of drugs through punitive measures, including the criminalisation of drug users.

However, the UNGASS process and last week’s meeting itself were seen by many to have side-lined calls to adopt a health and human rights-based approach to drug policy that is both fair and evidence-informed.